Standard penetration testing in a virtual calibration chamber

Arroyo, Marcos; Ciantia, Matteo Oryem; Gens, Antonio; Butlanska, Joanna

doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.03.021

Cited by 36 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 49 publications

(75 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The penetration resistance was measured before and after the tests with a commercial penetrometer and compared with the penetration rate during two of the laboratory tests in quartz-sand described in Wippermann et al (2020) with the Proto Flight Equivalent Model PFE 1 (compare Table 3). These data allow an estimate of at least for these tests as Zhang et al (2019) find the static resistance (the resistance to a slowly penetrating penetrometer) to be very close to the dynamic resistance for penetration resistances smaller than 10 MPa. By comparing the penetration rates with the penetration resistances up to 3 m tip depth, we find = 0.47±0.05.…”

Section: Comparison With Test Data and Models -Soil Penetration Resis...mentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Many models have been published aiming at predicting the rate of penetration of penetrometers in sand. These include analytical theories such as Rahim et al (2004) based on the cavity expansion theory of Salgado et al (1997) as well as numerical models based on e.g., Dynamic Cone Penetration Theory (Poganski et al, 2017) and Discrete Element Modeling (e.g., Lichtenheld and Krömer, 2016;Zhang et al, 2019;). In general, they find the penetration resistance σ P for a penetrator of a given stroke energy E to be inversely proportional to the penetration rate Table 3 Comparison of penetration rates at depths between 300 and 720 mm in the Deep Penetration Tests with Syar sand and with quartz-sand WF 34 described in more detail in Wippermann et al (2020).…”

Section: Comparison With Test Data and Models -Soil Penetration Resis...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The efficiency of energy conversion is more difficult to estimate and the result is more uncertain. Rahim et al (2004) use 0.75 while Zhang et al (2019) find 0.5 as a typical value. The penetration resistance was measured before and after the tests with a commercial penetrometer and compared with the penetration rate during two of the laboratory tests in quartz-sand described in Wippermann et al (2020) with the Proto Flight Equivalent Model PFE 1 (compare Table 3).…”

Section: Comparison With Test Data and Models -Soil Penetration Resis...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The InSight HP$^3$ Penetrator (Mole) on Mars: Soil Properties Derived From the Penetration Attempts and Related Activities

Spohn¹,

Hudson²,

Marteau³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The NASA InSight Lander on Mars includes the Heat Flow and Physical Properties Package HP 3 to measure the surface heat flow of the planet. The package uses temperature sensors that would have been brought to the target depth of 3-5 m by a small penetrator, nicknamed the mole. The mole requiring friction on its hull to balance remaining recoil from its hammer mechanism did not penetrate to the targeted depth. Instead, by precessing about a point midway along its hull, it carved a 7 cm deep and 5-6 cm wide pit and reached a depth of initially 31 cm. The root cause of the failure -as was determined through an extensive, almost two years long campaign -was a lack of friction in an unexpectedly thick cohesive duricrust. During the campaign -described in detail in this paper -the mole penetrated further aided by friction applied using the scoop at the end of the robotic Instrument Deployment Arm and by direct support by the latter. The mole finally reached a depth of 40 cm, bringing the mole body 1-2 cm below the surface. It reversed its downward motion twice during attempts to provide friction through pressure on the regolith instead of directly with the scoop to the hull. The penetration record of the mole and its thermal sensors were used to measure thermal and mechanical soil parameters such as the penetration resistance of the duricrust of 0.5 -1.2 MPa and a penetration resistance of a deeper layer (> 30 cm depth) of 5.3 MPa. Applying cone penetration theory, the resistance of the duricrust was used to estimate a cohesion of the latter of 4 -25 kPa depending on the internal friction angle of the duricrust. Pushing the scoop with its blade into the surface and chopping off a piece of duricrust provided another estimate of the cohesion of 5.8 kPa. The hammerings of the mole were recorded by the seismometer SEIS and the signals could be used to derive a P-wave velocity of 114 +40 −19 m/s and a S-wave velocity of 60 +10 −7 m/s (Brinkman et al., 2021) representative of the topmost tens of cm of the regolith. Together with a density of 1211 +149 −113 kg/m 3 (Grott et al., 2021) provided by a thermal conductivity and diffusivity measurement using the mole thermal sensors, the

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Test Data and Models -Soil Penetration Resis...mentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Comparison With Test Data and Models -Soil Penetration Resis...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison With Test Data and Models -Soil Penetration Resis...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The InSight HP$^3$ Penetrator (Mole) on Mars: Soil Properties Derived From the Penetration Attempts and Related Activities

Spohn¹,

Hudson²,

Marteau³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here in what follows we describe the essential details of the model set up presented in our previous work [9] for ease of reference. All the numerical models presented in this work are performed using the DEM code PFC3D [10].…”

Section: Dem Model Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

DEM examination of SPT correction factors

Arroyo¹,

Ciantia

Gens³

2021

EPJ Web Conf.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is the most widely used method for dynamic testing of soils. The test is simple and robust but difficult to control and not fully standardized. As a result, experimental results typically show large variations and poor repeatability. To mitigate that correction factors such as energy normalization and rod length have been introduced in SPT practice. This study provides an examination of the two correction factors using models based on the discrete element method (DEM).

show abstract

“…Numerous numerical studies using the two-dimensional discrete element method (DEM) have been employed to model the static penetration test (Huang and Ma, 1994;Huang and Hsu, 2004;Calvetti and Nova, 2005;Jiang et al, 2006aJiang et al, , 2006bJiang et al, 2014;Janda and Ooi, 2016) and the dynamic penetration test (Benz-Navarrete, 2009;Quezada et al, 2014;Escobar Valencia, 2015;Tran, 2015;Tran et al, 2016;Zhang et al, 2019). In these works, the penetrometer was generally represented by a rigid solid that cannot deform.…”

Section: Numerical Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerical verification of the continuous calculation method for tip stress during the driving process of the dynamic penetration test

Tran

Chevalier

Benz-Navarrete³

et al. 2019

Soils and Foundations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a calculation method for obtaining the continuous variation in stress between the tip and the soil during dynamic penetration tests, particularly in the case of using the Panda 3 Ò penetration testing device. The originality of the method is that the tip stress can be computed continuously throughout the driving process. For each impact of the hammer on the penetrometer, data are recorded by sensors located at the top of the apparatus. Then, the stress at the tip and the displacement of the apparatus are calculated with a method based on the propagation of waves in the device. A three-dimensional numerical model of the penetration test, based on the Panda 3 Ò specifications and using the discrete element method (DEM), is proposed in this paper. The purpose of the simulations is to validate the calculation method by comparing the curves of the tip stress versus the penetration distance obtained in two different ways, the first being the distance directly observed at the tip and the second being the distance calculated from the data recorded at the top of the penetrometer, as with the experimental device. The entire apparatus is represented, including the hammer, the rod, and the tip, and is driven into the model soil. The calculation method is applied, and the results are compared to the actual response of the soil to the driving of the penetrometer directly at the tip, which can be obtained with the numerical model. The responses are found to be very similar, confirming the theoretical framework and its underlying assumptions. This method is applied to dynamic penetration tests and provides the opportunity to obtain mechanical parameters other than the tip resistance from the tests.

show abstract

Standard penetration testing in a virtual calibration chamber

Cited by 36 publications

References 49 publications

The InSight HP$^3$ Penetrator (Mole) on Mars: Soil Properties Derived From the Penetration Attempts and Related Activities

The InSight HP$^3$ Penetrator (Mole) on Mars: Soil Properties Derived From the Penetration Attempts and Related Activities

DEM examination of SPT correction factors

Numerical verification of the continuous calculation method for tip stress during the driving process of the dynamic penetration test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About